 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Well, in terms of this discussion, the individual is irrelevant compared to the larger, longitudinal issue we're addressing. Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) In my mind, and in the "mind" of 3.5+ billion years of evolution so far. Which do you think provides objectively a greater chance that your genetics will live on--your ability to see, or your ability to reproduce? Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) not (...) I suppose. But so what? The individuals are the ones who'll feel the pain in either case, and I think most people would rather have their eyes than their eggs. (...) kids (...) and I (...) So far, I think I'm winning. I've spent more (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think that if it were real, it would be technologically nifty...but I guess I agree that it's not really attractive. I would hope to see them do better if they actually got something off the ground...err, shore. (...) Well, yeah. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) In your mind maybe. To me and my wife, we'd MUCH rather have our sight than kids ;-) I spent $4K for laser surgery just to correct my badly nearsight vision, and I haven't regretted it for a second. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Yes, we are WAY better off producing food in our own country rather than contributing to foolish exploitation and environmentally unsound agricultural practices in other nations. Though we may benefit econimically, we are helping to destroy (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process. Upon reflection I realized what you (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I understand your point. But does the average beef eating man not benift from the cheap grazing in the longer term? Does the US not impose tax on the owners of the cattle? Does your country not gain from sourcing beef from inside the USA (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I agree with that. I am bound by my own inner morals, not the letter of the law, and feel some things that are legal are wrong, and some things that are illeage are not wrong. (...) But that begs the question of how much change is needed. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) The complex. (...) In your opinion. I expect it would be full of the elderly nouveaux riche hoping to avoid paying tax. I expect there would be others their too hoping to exploit “freedoms” which are thankfully illegal in most other civilised (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I think you have just highlighted one of the biggest problems with modern society. By that, I mean the increasingly common belief that just because an action is within the written law it must be ~OK~. I think this is quite wrong. Loopholes do (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) that I think about it I sure may have been wrong.) What's not pretty about that? The web page, the Ociania complex, or the idea of people building sovreignty on the seas? The only problem with that is that the Ociania project went belly up (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I was. :-) Put it this way, if you have a system in which government influence can have more economic impact than competing in the market, and in which large companies can effectively change what it is that government influences (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Uh! It is appropriate for organizations to lobby for the government to do the things that that organization thinks are good. It is inappropriate for the government to do bad things with our mutual resources. I think all the blame for anything (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Here is a start. It is not pretty, but it is a start: (URL) A (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Which is what we've been seeing in most developed nations for the past forty years. Everyone gets their chance at the genetic lottery, with lower odds. My spin on a couple of other points: -- Environmental impact is affected by consumption and (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) That's what I thought. (...) Aren't there corporate lobbies that want grazing (continuing with your example) prices that low? I'm not sure you can place all the blame on the goverment. (...) I'm still not sure why they should be owned. I've of (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Which won't happen anytime in the near future. One of the biggest impediments to 'universal' public transportation is that our current model of suburban development does not lend itself to fast and convienent transit options. (...) While I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) A suprisingly effective way to curtail population growth (at least in iteroparous organisms) is to delay the age of first production. It's also a lot nicer than forced sterilization. -chris (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) As Tom pointed out, I was the one who tossed that out originally. You did the math right and understand the reason. If you are controlling a population (of mamals, at least), the way to do so is to control the female reproduction. Good and bad (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
